Pre-fight posturing ... changes when push comes to shove

Right off the bat, a warning: this video contains a lot of "f-bomb" swearing. Watch at your discretion.

But that's not why I found it interesting.

There's a lot that can be said about this video ... whether it's "self defence" or not ... about the posturing before a fight ...

... but what caught my eye was that "red shirt" put on a big display of "martial arts poses" in the lead-up to the action, but once the punches started getting thrown his technique went out the window and he basically threw haymakers until one landed and finished the fight.

I think we can be confident and say it’s not self-defence and is instead a consensual fight. In most places in the world such activity is illegal (as well as being stupid) and both participants will find themselves legally accountable for any injury caused. If the person dropped died, the guy in red could be looking at a life sentence.

As has been said here many times before, we have a legal right to defend ourselves, we have no legal right to fight in the street. In this clip it seems like both participants succumbed to ego and the encouragement of the crowd (the girl in orange being the only one trying to calm things down it seems). It’s illegal and dumb.

Ian H wrote:

... but what caught my eye was that "red shirt" put on a big display of "martial arts poses" in the lead-up to the action, but once the punches started getting thrown his technique went out the window and he basically threw haymakers until one landed and finished the fight.

The poses would suggest a failure to understand that conflict is chaotic and such “formality” will not withstand the nature of the situation. It’s also not unusual for people not “stress conditioned” to return to the body’s innate motions. I’m told that our propensity to close our hands tightly (into fists) and swing comes from our innate clubbing action. Humans have no natural weapons, so we tightly hold on to the weapon we have acquired (club, rock, etc) and bring it down onto the enemy in an arcing fashion. Without training to act in a more efficient manner, we resort to the innate clubbing action that worked pretty well for our ancestors and try to “smash” the problem away. It is for this reason that wild swings and “wind-milling” are human’s go to actions in the absence of any trained alternatives.

The poses would suggest a failure to understand that conflict is chaotic and such “formality” will not withstand the nature of the situation. It’s also not unusual for people not “stress conditioned” to return to the body’s innate motions.

Exactly.

I note also that when there is no "immediate" threat early on, he takes a very deep and theatrical stance, but when he is closer to his adversary, his stance becomes shorter and higher.

(I don't want to turn this into a debate on the "self defence vs. consentual fight" issue ... I agree that this looks much more like the latter in the video ... I wonder about the large croud surrounding the combatants which seems to be supporting the other guy ... perhaps there is some sort of group dynamic going on where "red shirt" felt compelled to fight "the mob's champion" after being surrounded and threatened by the mob ... of course we don't see that and it's just wild speculation on my part ... doing a bit of "devil's advocate" work for "red shirt" ... but yeah, what we see looks pretty much like two guys "havin' a go".)

I wonder if red shirt guys "moves" were done more in the hope that appearing to be "trained" would dissuade the other guy from engaging in a fight?

He may have bene thinking that, but the fact he pursued his opponent would suggest not. And even if it was, it was a bad idea (as the laughter helps illustrate). As an asides, I think anyone “in the know” would be relieved if someone tried to intimidate with such theatrics because it suggests a HUGE misunderstanding about the dynamics of conflict.

Ian H wrote:

Well, he left his "I know karate ... and seventeen other dangerous words" t-shirt at home, so that's all he had left to go with.

I wonder if red shirt guys "moves" were done more in the hope that appearing to be "trained" would dissuade the other guy from engaging in a fight?

He may have bene thinking that, but the fact he pursued his opponent would suggest not. And even if it was, it was a bad idea (as the laughter helps illustrate). As an asides, I think anyone “in the know” would be relieved if someone tried to intimidate with such theatrics because it suggests a HUGE misunderstanding about the dynamics of conflict.

Ian H wrote:

Well, he left his "I know karate ... and seventeen other dangerous words" t-shirt at home, so that's all he had left to go with.

I wonder if red shirt guys "moves" were done more in the hope that appearing to be "trained" would dissuade the other guy from engaging in a fight?

He may have bene thinking that, but the fact he pursued his opponent would suggest not. And even if it was, it was a bad idea (as the laughter helps illustrate). As an asides, I think anyone “in the know” would be relieved if someone tried to intimidate with such theatrics because it suggests a HUGE misunderstanding about the dynamics of conflict.

Ian H wrote:

Well, he left his "I know karate ... and seventeen other dangerous words" t-shirt at home, so that's all he had left to go with.

I saw this video and the "Inspiring Tai Chi" video back to back. The contrast got me thinking. The black-shirt guy threw multiple haymakers one after another. Some of the Tai Chi moves seem to assume the attacker will throw one punch at a time. We need to assume the attacker will lead with one haymaker (most likely the right hand) and then follow up with another flailing chaser with the other (left) hand. So we must be prepared to block two punches, or block the first and immediately strike in such a way as to pre-empt the next punch.

Note: to be clear, I'm not picking on Tai Chi, or anything, here. I was quite impressed with the Tai Chi video, for what it's worth. I've seen lots of style demos that seem to assume one-at-a-time attacks. It was just those two videos back-to-back for me that got me thinking about the immediacy of the followup.

I did notice how much of the Tai Chi application was stepping in towards the attacker, getting inside the distance wherein a haymaker will do much distance, tying up limbs and unbalancing the attacker. Great stuff. I'd love to see the Tai Chi approach at full speed against a flailing attacker.

Also, those many haymakers from black-shirt were looping overhand "punches," not anything we'd think is good form. But that's what they'll throw. So we need to train to defend against those sorts of punches. The punches will come from any angle. I have no idea whether those punches would have enough power to do much damage. Everything I'm taught at the dojo seems to imply that flailing arm-only punches won't have much effect (otherwise why am I doing so much with my legs & hips?). But I still don't want to eat one.

Does anyone here practice drilling against flailing street-punk tactics? I heard once that the Gracie Academy modified their entry-level training to be BJJ-vs-street tactics rather than BJJ-vs-BJJ. Seems reasonable if real self-defense is our goal.

On the goofy posing before the fight, I think it did get black-shirt a little distracted. I'm not advocating it (or anything else I see in the video, except that one woman in orange trying to stop it). But it does seem to me that the black-shirt guy had to think about it and decide what to do, and probably wonder if red-shirt was freakin' nuts. And it probably gave red-shirt some confidence and comfort that he was doing what he trained for. Was it decisive in the fight? Probably not. But I think it may have benefitted red-shirt. Though not as much as half a brain would've, to be sure.

Sorry for the long, multi-topic post. Obviously I found this very interesting.